Board Work Sessions on Budget and on BEX V Implementation Planning
Update: here's a video of the Superintendent "explaining" the shortfall situation. It's nothing new; I think most parents understand by now that 1)there are new K-12 dollars but also 2) the Legislature also took away the level of dollars accessible in local levies. More to come in a new thread from my attendance at the Work Session on the Budget.
end of update
There are two Board Work Sessions scheduled for Wednesday, the 6th, at Garfield High School. The Budget Work Session starts at 4:30 pm while the BEX V Implementation Planning Work Session starts at 6:00 pm. Agenda
I'm
a bit puzzled as there is no documentation on what will be discussed at
the Budget Work Session while the BEX V Work Session documentation seems quite long
for an hour and a half meeting. Almost as if staff didn't want any questions from the Board.
To note from the BEX V portion:
Update: the Budget Work Session documentation is now available. Highlights:
- page 8 details cuts. Most of it would be - yes - at the school level via the WSS. Page 8 had 16.5M but a consensus was reached in January to cut it down to $12.2M.
- page 13 then says:
end of update
There are two Board Work Sessions scheduled for Wednesday, the 6th, at Garfield High School. The Budget Work Session starts at 4:30 pm while the BEX V Implementation Planning Work Session starts at 6:00 pm. Agenda
To note from the BEX V portion:
- Staff has a timeline that is a bit hard to understand. It has completion dates but no real starting dates.
- There's project for Coe Elementary which was on neither BEX IV nor BEX V and it's funded with State Distressed School Funds. That's great but they need to go to the end of the line.
- Rainier Beach is being done in three phases and won't be done until 2025. What?!
- Also, the worst condition schools like Northgate Elementary, John Rogers and Alki are waiting longer than other better condition schools.
Update: the Budget Work Session documentation is now available. Highlights:
- page 8 details cuts. Most of it would be - yes - at the school level via the WSS. Page 8 had 16.5M but a consensus was reached in January to cut it down to $12.2M.
- page 13 then says:
Restoration Plan Recommendation
1. Fully restore WSS - $12.2m
2. Restore 50% of:
• Fall Enrollment
• Central Admin funding
3. Prorate the remaining: • Fall Enrollment
• Central Admin funding
• Curriculum
• 24 credits
Note: Central Admin and Fall Enrollment are recommended to be first, as these impact staffing positions.
1. Fully restore WSS - $12.2m
2. Restore 50% of:
• Fall Enrollment
• Central Admin funding
3. Prorate the remaining: • Fall Enrollment
• Central Admin funding
• Curriculum
• 24 credits
Note: Central Admin and Fall Enrollment are recommended to be first, as these impact staffing positions.
Okay, are they really saying Central Admin cuts first and then fully restore WSS?
Pages 22- 24 have school by school info but it's not easy to read (even when enlarged). For elementaries, Lowell, Thurgood Marshall, and Viewridge are losing at least 3-4 teachers. For middle schools, Mercer will lose 4 while McClure and JAMS will lose at least 2. For K-8s, if I'm reading it right, Blaine will lose 10.
For high schools, Ballard 10, Garfield 12, Franklin 6, Roosevelt 13.
Page 17 has a list of cuts/costs. Cut the IB funds but:
do not restore, unless there is need.
Of course, it's needed. The programs cannot run on fumes. How is RBHS going to attract students without a fully-funded program?
From reader Robert Cruickshank (and I endorse this - the school-level cuts MUST be reversed first should money come in. Also, ANY canndidate for the Board, incumbent or not, should endorse number four.)
These cuts can and must be averted. We cannot treat them as inevitable or irreversible. To do so would do a huge disservice to our kids and would be a hugely inequitable outcome.
Here is how we reverse the cuts.
1. Get the legislature to give SPS local levy flexibility.
2. Get the legislature to pass a capital gains tax with more funding for public schools.
3. Get the legislature to pass more funding for special education.
The legislature is very close to doing all three, but more parent calls and emails are needed. Do not believe anyone who says the legislature won't do these things. I was there last week and can confirm we are close on all three.
Then we need one more thing:
4. Get SPS leaders, including the superintendent and all seven board directors, to commit to fully restoring all cuts to the classroom, including to teachers, once SPS gets enough money from the state. They may have to send out layoff notices, but those can be rescinded and/or teachers and librarians and other workers rehired as new funds come available.
Four board director positions are up for election this fall. No board member who refuses to commit to fulfilling item #4 should be returned to office
From reader Robert Cruickshank (and I endorse this - the school-level cuts MUST be reversed first should money come in. Also, ANY canndidate for the Board, incumbent or not, should endorse number four.)
These cuts can and must be averted. We cannot treat them as inevitable or irreversible. To do so would do a huge disservice to our kids and would be a hugely inequitable outcome.
Here is how we reverse the cuts.
1. Get the legislature to give SPS local levy flexibility.
2. Get the legislature to pass a capital gains tax with more funding for public schools.
3. Get the legislature to pass more funding for special education.
The legislature is very close to doing all three, but more parent calls and emails are needed. Do not believe anyone who says the legislature won't do these things. I was there last week and can confirm we are close on all three.
Then we need one more thing:
4. Get SPS leaders, including the superintendent and all seven board directors, to commit to fully restoring all cuts to the classroom, including to teachers, once SPS gets enough money from the state. They may have to send out layoff notices, but those can be rescinded and/or teachers and librarians and other workers rehired as new funds come available.
Four board director positions are up for election this fall. No board member who refuses to commit to fulfilling item #4 should be returned to office
Comments
I repeatedly hear legislators complain that SPS is not well managed. I cannot disagree with them. So we find ourselves, in the words of one legislator, "having to give SPS more money even though we know they're not good managers." That is precisely the place we are in. I am hopeful that our still-new superintendent will at some point make it a priority to clean up the mismanagement. I am not sure she is aware of how incredibly damaging the ongoing mismanagement is for SPS's cause in Olympia/
I would also note that several board director positions are up for re-election, and if the district does not restore cuts even if they have the funds to do so, this will reflect extremely poorly on any director seeking a second term in office.
RM
Because of the severity of the budget shortfall, it is critical that enrollment projections are as accurate as possible. It looks like these projections are ultra conservative. Enrollment drives revenue. As the enrollment projections are extra conservative, that means that revenue projections are conservative.
The consequence is a double whammy. The proposed cuts may be extra deep because cuts are being made for both the lost revenue and the lost students. If either some revenue is restored or enrollment remains stable, then SPS could easily be in a position where they desperately need to rehire the teacher they just RIF'ed.
Anyone familiar with teaching hiring will know how impossible that will be. SPS already struggles to hire enough teachers every year, for natural turnover. If SPS RIFs 100 teachers and then needs to be rehired 100 teachers, the damage to teaching and learning communities will be extensive.
This is even more dramatic at high school. High School teachers are all specialized and not interchangeable. SPS already has an incredibly hard time finding enough foreign language, math and science teachers every year for high school.
It is highly improbable that all high schools will be experiencing a significant enrollment drop next year.
That projection just does not pass the sniff test. The current 8th grade class is significantly larger than the graduating 12th grade class. That would normally indicate enrollment growth at high school.
Lincoln is scheduled to open next year because of enrollment growth. Downtown had pushed heavily for a Memorial Stadium high school to manage additional expected growth.
And now ... the budget cuts are being made as if an entire comprehensive high school was going to vanish next year. There is something seriously wrong with these numbers and I hope the board asks for transparency and substantiation for these numbers, before they agree to remove teachers from their positions.
The 2019-20 projection is that Madison Middle School's enrollment is going to decrease by 12 students. The 8th grade at Madison as 313 students, and 6th grade has 344. So the expectation must be that the incoming class has only 300 students or so (or there is significant attrition in the two other grades.)
I just added up the 5th grade classes for the feeder schools to Madison. They add up to 396 kids. But that's not all! HCC qualified kids who went to their neighborhood school in the SW region might decide to go to Madison for middle school instead of Denny. I don't know the numbers on that, but I would think that would be at least a dozen kids. For these numbers to make any sense, SPS is counting on a whole lot of West Seattle kids making other choices for Middle School. Is the capture rate between elementary and middle school in West Seattle only 75%? It seems very fishy to me.
WSParent
WSParent
So ... SPS is projecting a total enrollment decrease of over 1600 students for next year. To the best of my recollection, that would be the single largest one year change in total enrollment in at least the last 30 years and potentially the history of the district. The district has never grown or shrunk by 1600 students in recent memory. So why now?
The district is also predicting large enrollment decreases at multiple schools, that have never had enrollment decreases of that size.
Even the enrollment "shifts" make no sense. The projected new enrollment at Lincoln (+556) is SMALLER than expected decreases at Garfield (-294), Ballard (-256) and Roosevelt (-321). In theory, opening a new high school, should cause an enrollment increase, not a total decrease of more than 300 students.
Essentially these projections are predicting a mass exodus of students. Where do they think they going? Alien abduction? Are there multiple new charter schools?
I hope someone attending the work session can present the rationale.
From the Seattle Times, dated Sept. 6, 20: "Phyllis Campano, president of the Seattle Education Association, said on Wednesday that if the union and district can’t lobby the Legislature for more flexibility on the levy swap, there could be layoffs at the end of the school year...When Campano was asked why the teams would approve a 10.5 percent raise if it could trigger layoffs, she responded: 'We think we can work hard enough to not let that happen.'"
Manufactured Crisis
Washington Paramount Duty will lead you down a path to financial ruin.
The frustrating thing to me as a parent is that these issues and cuts were 100% predictable. We KNEW about them last summer when all of the districts were negotiating contracts. There was NEVER money for the compensation increases most (all?) districts in the state gave to their teachers (and many other district employees). Even with an increase in the levy we're predicting shortfalls. That means we are paying out too much money vs what we have. In the end, the kids are the ones who lose.
When are this year's contract negotiations going to start? Are we going to dig ourselves deeper into a hole?
This again
That still seems like a big decrease, but if the cuts are so severe, students may be "forced" into other options. But if SPS were in fact making such dire predictions about the ability to provided needed classes, surely they'd be transparent about it, right? I doubt this is what's behind the projection gap, but it sure would be nice for them to share just what they ARE thinking. Or is this just an effort to be overly cautious and officially predict more losses than they unofficially predict?
unclear
Kellie I agree, makes no sense without an explanation. Is the enrollment office who should have an idea as it is after open enrollment also talking with the budget office to fine tune projections?
RM
Per the SPS website "FAQ" page regarding next year's enrollment, the district projects that there will be 700 fewer students next year in SPS. Per the budget materials given to the board, there will be 1626 fewer students next year in SPS.
The difference in those projections is 926 students. I have no idea how much the state gives Seattle per kid, but if it is $6k per student, the difference is over $5.5 million that Seattle will be getting in state funding that isn't accounted for. $5.5 millions is about half of what the district wants to cut to the WSS basic budget (they are talking about cutting about $12 million).
There is no question there is something very wrong happening. I wonder if the enrollment projections folks got a memo stating that they have over-projected enrollment for too many years, and they need to be really conservative going forward. Then, they dramatically over corrected. Someone gave a different number to FAQ website people than they gave to the Board. What gives? Regardless, someone needs to get some real numbers pronto before unbelievable damage is done at the school level.
WSParent
This is a huge problem for SPS and, ultimately, for the families and students the district exists to serve. Personally, I found Juneau's video rant on the budget to be 100 percent unhelpful. She focused solely on the state and explained NOTHING about the district's decisions around how and where to cut.
It should not be the responsibility of individual parents to try to decipher the "why" behind a massive budget proposal--or to decipher opaque enrollment projections. It is the responsibility of the district and school board to communicate WHY they are making decisions they are making and on WHAT evidence/data they are making those decisions.
Transparency NOW.
Concerned parent
WSParent
If Lincoln were a replacement for an existing HS, where staff and students moved en masse to the new building, perhaps enrollment would be more predictable. But it's not. Too many unknowns.
unpredictable
While some questions were asked and were answered, I still have to wonder about those answers.
The "theory" of opening new schools and the increase in total enrollment is pretty straightforward and used by school districts all across the county. When schools get overcrowded, enrollment gets saturated, as people make other choices to avoid extremely over crowded schools. There is then a pop in total enrollment when the new school opens and the overcrowding has been managed.
Now the EXECUTION of opening a new building can vary wildly. When JAMS opened there was a huge uptick in total enrollment. When Meany and Whitman opened, there was not much of an increase and that can easily be attributed to the gross mismanagement and broken promises by the district.
Effectively, these high school projections can be interpreted two ways.
1) There is some active manipulation and nobody really has any expectation that the enrollment could ever be this low
2) Something went horribly, horribly wrong during open enrollment and these numbers are an admission of a mass exodus of high school students.
There are several schools, with long historic wait lists, that are projected to take huge enrollment hits.
Ballard (-256)
Franklin (-134)
Garfield (-294)
Roosevelt (-321)
The proposed plan would ONLY restore 50% of any September adjustment for staffing. In other words, enrollment has requested draconian staffing cuts at these four schools. In the event that enrollment is completely and totally wrong and there are more students than expected in September, then the budget office will only restore staffing at 50% of the enrollment.
That is just plain wrong. Notably, all four of these schools have pretty large Running Start populations. Running Start enrollment has increased significantly at Ballard and Roosevelt at the same time that overall enrollment has increased. One would reasonably expect that Running Start enrollment would decline to closer to the historic averages when Lincoln opened. However, this process will drastically limit the ability for many seniors to get courses other than graduation requirements and push more students into RS.
There are a few elementary schools in this same position, with unprecedented enrollment drops. I hope the board really pushed back on this one because revenue is supposed to follow students.
If there is anything even remotely accurate about these projections, one should reasonably expect a round of school closures in the near future.
It is time for enrollment planning to just admit that their strategy of ignoring the Student Assignment Plan, splitting siblings and refusal to move wait lists at schools with space has not created the "staffing stability' they intended and instead is now directly causing teacher RIFs and decreased revenue for the district and weakened trust with families.
reluctantly RS
I feel terrible for the teachers and kids in this situation, and as always, I'm incensed at the incompetence and malpractice of many players in the central admin who are highly paid, but botch the planning and execution of budgets/projections/school assignments etc. year after year.
-Seattle parent
Exit Poll
Robert C's said: 'I repeatedly hear legislators complain that SPS is not well managed. I cannot disagree with them. So we find ourselves, in the words of one legislator, "having to give SPS more money even though we know they're not good managers."'
Bellevue City Councilmember Jared Nieuwenhuis discussing why Amazon is moving some jobs from Seattle to Bellevue: “It starts with a city that’s very well run. I think we’re a global hub for technology and innovation,” he said. “Additionally, as a city and a city council we’re business friendly. That might be a little bit different than what Amazon is used to.”
"While there is a mix of Democrats and Republicans on the Bellevue City Council, Nieuwenhuis says they don’t lead with ideology. Instead, they focus on what’s best for Bellevue."
Weyerhaeuser CAO Denise Merle: 'Weyerhaeuser employees have walked over needles, trash and human waste and endured frightening encounters with “aggressive individuals,” after which Merle said one employee even had to seek medical attention.'
http://mynorthwest.com/1294486/bellevue-councilman-amazon/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/feeling-abandoned-by-city-hall-seattle-businesses-try-to-respond-to-homelessness/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/wide-range-of-seattle-businesses-speak-out-against-head-tax-proposal/
1. Bellevue
2. South Seattle
2. Everett
I carpool to Everett.
I take the bus from Northgate TC to
Bellevue without issues. I walk to my place of business without issues.
I take the D bus to the 124 bus when working in south
Seattle. I'm harassed on the bus and in the city. The street people overwhelm the system there is trash all across SODO. This city is disgusting and not well run. It fits the Seattle narrative that SPS matches the city.
Why would anyone give more money to SPS?
Fedup
They need to be broken into smaller districts and IMO scale back and focus more narrowing on their programming. No need for the large infrastructure with all the directors, keep it more simple like smaller districts.
There is also some animus between schools despite the fact the district allocates far more resources to lower income schools. Even though lower income schools are supposed to be their focus. Breaking the district up into smaller districts would enable administrators to actually focus on their populations and perhaps garner more Title I and other federal dollars as well.
A Parent
Fed Up, is it the D line, the 124 or your transfer point that you have issues with?
HP
If the district were split into several smaller less diverse districts, would your child(ren) be in a low poverty or high poverty district?
Fairmount Parent
FNH
A Parent
A Parent
A Parent
A Parent
Fairmount Parent
At one point, SPS had 100,000 students.